May 25, 2005
MSM Longs for Pix of Dead Americans
In case the New York Times' marathon Abu Ghraib hypefest and Newsweek's Korangate fiasco didn't make it clear whose side the establishment media is on in the War on Terror, NewsMax.com reports that journalists are chaffing at the bit because of limitations on disseminating photographs of dead American soldiers.
President Roosevelt strictly prohibited the media from publishing photos of dead American soldiers during WWII for the obvious reasons that they would have high propaganda value for the enemy and would undermine American morale, both among the troops and among the civilian population whose support is critical for military success. This limitation was largely honored through following wars.
But now, with the bulk of the media more or less openly siding with the Islamofascist enemy out of sheer depraved moonbattery, they unsurprisingly want to change the rules.
In a comprehensive report published Saturday, the LA Times laments finding "almost no pictures from the war zone of Americans killed in action," which they believe results in an "incomplete portrait of the violence."
"There can be horrible images, but war is horrible and we need to understand that," bleats war photographer Chris Hondros, as if unaware of the strategic consequences of ramming these horrible images down our throats on the evening news.
Pim Van Hemmen of the Newark Star-Ledger almost touches on the real issue by complaining that "Writing in a headline that 1,500 Americans have died doesn't give you nearly the impact of showing one serviceman who is dead."
A representative of the NY Times also pipes in, yammering about their "responsibility to bear witness" to morbid carnage. Apparently the fact that relatives would see the pictures dissuades the media about as much as the idea of giving aid and comfort to al Qaeda. Of course, rather than admit to their traitorous and unseemly nature, they squirt out clouds of sanctimony like a squid's defensive ink.
"We not only have the right, but the responsibility to run such photos," declared the Executive Editor of the Tacoma News Tribune, after publishing a picture of a dying American that left the soldier's wife "shaking and in tears for hours."
Hat tip: Wiggins
Cross-posted at The Wide Awakes
Posted by Van Helsing at May 25, 2005 12:19 PM
Do you think, if the MSM got their way, that in the end they'd actually publish pix of dead American heroes -- given that much of what they've been doing on the War on Terror coverage has been to thwart, obstruct, and undermine our country's interests at home and abroad? Do you think they'd pick up on the sick irony that they may have even had a hand in bringing about those deaths?
Hey! Let's do a poll of the MSM. Shall we ask Newsweek first?
Posted by: The MaryHunter at May 25, 2005 12:51 PM
One just has to look at the images from the Civil War to realize the impact/horror war imparts.
I seem to recall an article in TV Guide, post VietNam, that talked about the impact of a televised live firefight in which an American soldier is killed on TV. I can not remember all the details, just that premise and I still shudder.
This is what the MSM wants to do. Not to show both sides but to demoralize and shake the resolve of the American people. While rarely showing footage of the brutality the other side carries out to further drive home their ideological point of view that anything the United States does is evil.
When President Reagan proposed deploying GLCMs and Pershings to Europe, the media and anti-war groups painted him as a war-monger while ignoring all the SS-20s the USSR had already deployed to incinerate Western Europe. John Barron called it inverting reality. How the USSR turned Western attempts at defense into this dangerous threat to peace.
The media continues to invert reality. To them deposing a homicidal tyrant is wrong because the US did it. All their other justifications of opposition are mere window dressing.
Posted by: Anna at May 25, 2005 2:10 PM
"war is horrible and we need to understand that". Duh. The only reason for this MSM longing for dead US servicemen's pics is to undermine US domestic resolve for this war. They did it in Vietnam and they think they can do it again here, too.
Posted by: Redhand at May 25, 2005 2:27 PM
A modest proposal ...er, compromise. How about if they just show photos of dead journalists?
Posted by: Occam's Beard at May 25, 2005 2:49 PM
Occam's Beard has a great suggestion. They can start by photographing the journalists deliberately targeted by US troops. It ought to keep them busy for the rest of the war, trying to find one.
Posted by: Van Helsing at May 25, 2005 4:33 PM
"They can start by photographing the journalists deliberately targeted by US troops."
That's a good one.
They should employ the Italian commie wannabie journalis Giuliana Sgrena as a full time consultant.
She knows how to invent stories.
Posted by: Felis at May 25, 2005 7:59 PM
'This is what the MSM wants to do. Not to show both sides but to demoralize and shake the resolve of the American people.'
I agree that this is what they want to do, but I think it would have the opposite effect. These pictures should not be banned because of their effect on the populace, they should be banned out of respect for the dead.
Posted by: Tran Sient at May 25, 2005 9:04 PM
REMEMBER all the journalist want to be the next Woodward & Berstein. There are no conserative journalism profs.
Today my local news station was talking to Louis Farakon as if he was a honest news souce on the prisoners in Getmo.
Posted by: yochanan at May 25, 2005 9:46 PM
This is the same MSM that would not show footage of people leaping to their deaths from the WTC -- And rarely any more shows video of the 9-11 attacks --- because they didn't want to inflame American passions too much.
Posted by: V the K at May 26, 2005 6:39 AM
Greg Mitchell at E&P has been hyping the LA Times story; of course he's been hyping anything anti-war for a couple years now.
Posted by: Brainster at May 26, 2005 1:11 PM
"This limitation was largely honored through following wars."
We're calling Vietnam a police action, I take it?
Posted by: Flaco at May 26, 2005 1:47 PM
The MSM doesn't want to demoralize. They want BALANCE.
All we get out of the wars are what good we're doing. Well, let's look at the cost, too.
Journalists are not the military. They have different jobs. Part of their job is to hold the powers that be accountable. You don't do that by saying "Jolly good war!"
You do that by holding the politicians accountable for those dead Americans so they get the job done and our people home alive.
Posted by: Randy Case at May 26, 2005 4:02 PM
Yo Randy Case, I agree, let's get some balance from the MSM journalistic pundits. They could start by reporting on human interest victories by the Iraqis who are trying to reclaim normal lives from the terror of Saddam and the brutal madness of the 'insurgents.' Further, how about a tour of repaired schools and hospitals and water, power and refinery plants and infrastructure, roads,bridges and the like.
The GI, ubiquitous at the fringes of all wars giving goodies to the kids, is not covered except when in killing mode. By contrast the Islamic radicals display a culture of death - civilians, women and children are slaughtered radomly. These dudes, like Zarqawi and his Saudi and Syrian friends, are the front line of the War on Terrror - and they are losing. Syria is trans-shipping war material to there thugs; I read of little outrage.
NOW, WHERE IS THE JOURNALISTIC MEAT?
FAIR AND BALANCED!
Posted by: Bergbikrk at May 26, 2005 4:47 PM